Landowners seeking state Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain case
“Judgment from the Minnesota Supreme Court is now being sought by the Snyder and Ristau parties over the disputed use of their land for the DNR-proposed Preston-to-Forestville recreational trail.
The recent Feb. 11 decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the Fillmore County Third District Court to “ensure that the parties will have had the merits of their arguments fully considered by the district court and to enable effective future appellate review . . .” The unpublished opinion produced by the Court of Appeals addressed a lack of explanation rendered by District Court Judge Thompson on the issue of why the court ruled in the favor of the city of Preston. Minnesota Statutes 85.015, subdivision 7 (b) and 86A.05, subdivision 4 were given as evidence that the proposed recreational trail was authorized under statutory law.
Statute 85.015 subd., 7(b) states the authorized locations for a recreational trail and does not include Forestville. The appellants view the proposed trail as a violation of this statute, while the city of Preston considers the Preston-Forestville trail segment as just one part of a future trail that may lead to an authorized location like Ostrander. According to the opinion paper, the appeals court declined to consider that evidence since it was not considered in the district court.
Statute 86A.05, subd. 4 is part of a 1975 legislation called the Minnesota Outdoor Recreation Act. It includes criteria for recreational trails. According to the opinion paper, this statute is cited within Minn. Stat. 85.015 subd., 7(b) in addition to an a criterion which says, ” ‘[the trails authorized by this section] must utilize abandoned railroad rights-of-way where possible.'” In a footnote in the opinion, the appeals court judge states that the placement of 86A.05, subd. 4 within the other statute makes clear “its intent is to place conditions on any expansions authorized by the section.” It then goes on to state the court does not think the Preston-to-Forestville segment of the trail is authorized. “
Adamek, Aton. Bluff County Reader 6 March 2013.